cafeteria socialism

gifted education

interdisciplinary museum trip

Sample Lesson

I'm in the midst of applying to teaching positions in the US and attempting to make something coherent of all the random thoughts and stresses I've experienced throughout my Fulbright research this year...  during those contemplations, I wrote the body of a cover letter in the form of a story--or really, a true account of a class I taught, here in Denmark.  I like the lesson--it has some implications regarding who I am as a teacher, and also what I have learned here.  I'm anxious to try it on American students--given the equality and philosophy here in dk, parts of the lesson had different impact.  Anyway, the topic is evolution, and in no way should the lesson materials presented here be construed as my personal view on the topic--in fact, it should be viewed as an opening for discussion and exploration.


A window into my classroom:

On the board is a single figure—an image meant to challenge my students’ current perception. It is a map of the world by latitude, the shades representing skin pigment in that world region. At the bottom, a question: Is variation in skin color a form of natural selection? 

Today’s problem was chosen deliberately, the topic playing on students’ interests and the content having real world and social relevance. Surrounding the unit is a single question: Are humans evolving? Students’ first task was to decide which of 3 perspectives on evolution best fit their own ideas. I note their responses for my own formative assessment, and afterward we hold a class discussion. Some students worry about how to answer correctly, or that they can’t express their ideas formally. I encourage them to explain in their own words: “Forget the vocabulary for now—tell us what you think.” Some students mention natural selection, others question evolution entirely. Clearly these are critical learners--that, or the topic has sparked some intrinsic thoughts and questions from the students.  I think being critical, or perhaps more appropriate, being objective, is an important component in students' growth as citizens.  After spending 40 odd hours a week in school, I hope students ask themselves: “Why do I need this class? What is the point of me being here?” To answer, I design engaging, authentic learning situations in order to put academics in real-world, social context and make other subjects relevant, enabling students to approach learning from multiple perspectives. After all, science is not confined to “science” in the real world. Today’s lesson is just one example of this.

The discussion continues, now focused on the world map figure, and I carefully note the important concepts students mention. Occasionally I probe for explanation or to keep the discussion on track. Students expect some questions such as “How do you know?” or “What’s your evidence?” or “What [tools] might help you answer that question?” I encourage students to understand the nature of science and inquiry by being explicit in class, and my students know that science has a tentative nature, but is based on observation and evidence. The discussion ends, and students create a list of learning issues needed in order to address the problem.

The final part of the day’s lesson covers one of the learning issues brought forward: “What IS natural selection?” Students will use tangible items to model the concept of natural selection, connect concepts from the prior discussion to the model and label the concepts they have been operationally describing with the technical science terms. We end with a wrap-up and a thinking homework assignment involving the 3 evolution perspectives and world map figure that will be used throughout the unit as students continue to develop their understanding of their learning issues.

Process versus Product

What makes danish education different?

Long answer:  see below
Short answer: Denmark is about Process, The US is about Product

It's a pretty common scheme in the US, especially when talking to young adults and professionals.  Ask around--"WHY did you go to college?" Why do we push youth to finish high school??  What is the motivation behind college and school? Answer: So I could get a better job, [duh].

At the end of the day, our goal process is almost always linked to career and job--the end result, or product of school and education.

Ok, so there ARE exceptions to that rule--(technically, I'm one of them).  But it's generally true, and certainly a major feature of the US education and culture.  There are about a hundred subtle nuances that go with the statement that we go to college in order to get a good job, but the idea is that the US requires education so that its citizens are able to be productive members of society.  The Danish education system is under the foundation that education is required in order to promote the building of the individual--in order to be CONTRIBUTING members of society.

Woah--wait a minute--let's go back to that.
Productive versus contributing: are they really THAT DIFFERENT??  Maybe not in the english language--but in a cultural and operational context they contain completely different modes of motivation, purpose, teaching, and policy.

getting a methods proposal draft together.

so at this point i'm working on getting a few pages together on a refined research topic, questions, and methods.  i'll be editing the survey questions and the lit review in the next few weeks.  but as for now, this is the direction i am heading.  let me know what you think!

---

In recent years science education reform has received increasing attention from researchers and educators around the world.  Much of the questions surrounding this issue involve topics of scientific literacy, the nature of science, and content standards reform.  In the US, the National Science Education Standards state that ‘the content standards define scientific literacy.’  Internationally, the PISA goals format the question in this way: What is important for citizens to know, value, and be able to do in situations involving science and technology?

The answers to this question are at the heart of science education goals around the world.  Every society must decide what is important for students to know and understand in order to be productive and critical citizens, or scientifically literate citizens.  The idea of a democratic science education revolves around the concept of scientific literacy, the capacity to use scientific knowledge and skills to make informed decisions in order to understand the natural world and to participate in social activities.  The scientific knowledge in question when considering scientific literacy often involves a discussion of the nature of science (NOS), an understanding of the process and skills that make up the discipline of science.  International standards documents show an increased attention to NOS ideas and scientific literacy, including the competency standards in Denmark (McComas, __, Dolin, IND MtG).

The Danish science education standards reflect three specific strands for students (future citizens) to engage: the use, understanding, and awareness of science and science content (MtG map).  The attainment targets (goals) at folkeskole science levels, though not specifically outlined as competencies, also align with process and NOS skills.  For 8-10 physics and chemistry they include: Physics and chemistry world/content, Evolution of scientific cognition, applications of physics/chemistry in everyday life and society, working methods and philosophies (Folkeskole Publication).  At the gymnasium level, the competency standards reflect the process and skills present in NOS ideas, and were created to supplement content standards with practical knowledge that would contribute to the scientific literacy of students.  Competencies require students to demonstrate knowledge, cognitive abilities, and attitudes, values, and motivations as they meet and respond to science-related issues (Dolin).  Their emphasis is on measuring the skills necessary for living an everyday life and to participate in democratic processes.  The competency standards were introduced in Denmark as part of the 2005 reform, in response to the PISA testing reports.  

The competencies related to science at the gymsaium level are (http://pub.uvm.dk/2004/fremtidens/html/chapter03.htm):

• Empirikompetence - observation and description, experimentation, classification, manual skills, data collection and processing, safety, assessment of uncertainty and expediency, critique methods, generalization between practice and theory, etc.. 
• Representation Competency - symbols and representations, and observing, presenting, differentiate and switch between different levels of representation, analyze, understand explanatory power, abstract, reduce, etc..
• Modeling Competence - problem formulation, develop, distinguish between model and reality, reduce, analyze, clarify, apply appropriate check falsify, determining causality, criticize, develop more. 
• Perspectives Competence - Internal consistency, coherence with non-science, historical / cultural context in relation to the near and the distant outside world, reflect on the progress of science and technology's roles in society, critically evaluate natural sciences knowledge compared to other knowledge, etc..

Impact of Educational Reform on Danish Science Education

With respect to education, standards should act to help define the content of instruction—to inform teacher education/development processes with regards to content and expectations (Impact of Standards).  In Denmark, the tradition of teaching and planning is left to the teacher (didactic), whose role is to merge the necessary content with the individual and collective learning needs of students (bildung aspect of education).  National content standards in Denmark are normally broad and nonspecific, reflecting consideration of
didactic choice.  In contrast, the introduction of competency standards as a part of science education reform in Denmark has placed a somewhat curricular tradition demand on Danish science teachers, creating a unique research perspective.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of imposing a curricular tradition on a didactic classroom teacher.  Specifically, the question of focus is: How do Danish science teachers (gymnasium) receive and interpret the Danish competency standards with respect to the nature of science.  How do standards affect their planning/instruction decisions? (Physics or bio specifically?)  The study will cover aspects of teachers’ beliefs about the necessity and relevance of NOS/competency reform strands and the degree of implementation of those standards in the classroom.   In addition, specific attention will be paid to the empirical and the perspectives competencies, as these most closely align with NOS goals. 

Questions to be considered:

-          Are the competency standards viewed as process or content oriented?

-          Do they (competencies) matter for students to be scientifically literate?  Any one more than the others?

-          Is competency teaching already a part of teachers instruction/planning?

o   Are any of the competencies easier to implement?

o   Are teachers implicit or explicit about the competencies/NOS in their practice?

Are teachers implicit or explicit about the competencies/NOS in their practice?

This will be addressed with observation and interview, as it is difficult to describe explicit instruction through a survey process.  Explicit instruction is a contextual phenomenon. An explicit NOS instructional approach deliberately focuses learners’ attention on various aspects of NOS during classroom instruction, discussion, and questioning (McDonald, 2010).

Specific methodology editing/refinement questions:       

Participants: Danish gymnasium teachers (physics or bio?—leaning toward physics here, but I’m open) will be targeted for the sample population.  Secondary (gymnasium) educators are targeted because the competency standards have been set for gymnasium level.

Data collection: 

The study will be involve mixed methods—with survey, observation and interview components.  The mixture of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (observation and interview) data collection will enable the researcher to gain a more well-rounded view of the phenomenon in question.  The added feature of observation of science teaching will enhance the data regarding the question of whether teachers are explicit or implicit regarding NOS/competencies.

Instrumentation: The protocol in the survey and interview targets (1) teacher’s attitudes towards competency/reform and (2) the degree of implementation of NOS reform strands. 

(Should I have an interview protocol?) 

(Should I consider sending the survey multiple times for reliability testing?) 

(Should I incorporate a comparison of preferred and actual goals/implementation?)

Potential Impacts:

-          How can teachers be assisted in addressing competency standards? (aka are there barriers to implementation?)

One of the important impacts of these questions is what potential barriers do science teachers encounter when implementing SBI practices?  This study will help to inform teacher education programs at university and local professional development levels to prepare teachers to implement the competency standards.

nl;

danish education system...not so standard

it would be good for me, i think, to describe a little bit of the danish education system before i jump into describing my conversations and research ideas any further.  the danish school system is anything but simple...i think the important thing to remember is that however complex it may seem, if you look closely enough there is probably a cultural/social reason or practical construct behind each structure of the system.  

there are 3 levels to the danish ed system:

folkeskole = primary school

gymnasium = secondary, or high school

university = tertiary, college

the folkeskole is mandatory for 9 years--our 1st through 9th grades essentially--with an option for year 10.  there is a year 0 available, and highly suggested, as well.  the 10th year is for students who choose to go on to gymnasium--they must stay for exams and such to test into that level.  students who do not attend gymnasium can go into work or a trade school.  it's no uncommon for students to take their 10th year at "efterskole"---a year away from home at a boarding school.

gymnasium is much more comparable to a US general ed course load at university.  there are several tracks to take in gymnasium, which give danish students an option to specialize earlier if they choose.  this is where the system gets even just a bit more complex, as each track is nearly a different school in itself.  also, it is essential to note that folkeskole and gymnasium have very little in common with regards to structure, teaching, content, and assessment.  basically, they have nothing in common but that they are danish.

by the time danish students reach university, they are ready to specialize in a field, having basically completed a gen. ed. course load at gymnasium the previous 3 years.  the 1st two years at university often compare much more to the last 2 years of a standard american degree (BS, BA) program.  it's in the junior/senior year that US students begin to specialize in their major courses.